It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian Jet Provokes U.S. Military Naval Ship

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by rickynews
 


This kind of thing happens all the time. It's just that this instance is being reported.




posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


There was a pause for a bit from the Russian side as they didn't have the funding.

But there has been quite the uptick over the past decade.

Cold War 2.0



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

squarehead666
When are you lot going to wake up and realise that poking the Russian Bear with a pointy stick is a bloody stupid idea?

What was the US vessel doing in the Black Sea? Making a point!

What was the Russian fighter doing? Making a point right back!

If the US wants a full scale apocalyptic war with, possibly the toughest, most determined people on the planet, they are going the right way.....Russia is not Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

In WWII the Soviet Union absorbed over 20 million casualties compared to the 400-450 thousand suffered by America or Britain.....So don't ever imagine these people will roll over in fear of the mighty west!

So what's it to be? A more reasonable attitude to the Russians (ie: stop trying to back them into a geopolitical corner).....Or back to the stone age for all of us?

As Vladimir Putin is very probably thinking right now....."It's your move punk!"
edit on 14-4-2014 by squarehead666 because: s&p


I think it was Paton who said that the when the Russians run out of bullets, they beat heads in with their mess tins.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by grayghost
 


They have a 5" gun, as well as a 42 or 48 cell (going from memory) vertical launch system using SM-2/3 antiaircraft/antimissile missiles, as well as CIWS or SeaRAM. The Aegis radar can also be steered onto a fine beam that generates enough power that it can fry electronics.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

TDawgRex
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


There was a pause for a bit from the Russian side as they didn't have the funding.

But there has been quite the uptick over the past decade.

Cold War 2.0


It never went away, it just got put on standby while the leaders played golf.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rustyclutch
 

The US is already working on making the EU dependent upon them for gas. I don't say this as all high and mighty and actually am not on board with it. But energy is energy and you get it where you can, right? If that plan pans out, that negates a lot of Russian clout.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


Actually I don’t like Alex Jones. He isn’t the only person who illustrates the hypocrisy of the US.

Read the work of Paul Craig Roberts, www.globalresearch.ca... ex-Reagan economist and the writers here who have serious articles far and above the kind of stuff from Jones.

www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Vovin

TritonTaranis
Consider NATO is many many time larger than the Russian military with better tech the odds are slim to none putting asides thermo nuclear


NATO is an imperialist alliance with the goal of maintaining western global hegemony.

Russia is an imperialist superpower with the goal of regional hegemony.




LOL ok read on please



NATO’s continuation and enlargement
Russian officials say that NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War, and that the accession of new Allies from Central and Eastern Europe undermines Russia’s security.

NATO was not disbanded after the Cold War because its members wanted to retain the bond that had guaranteed security and stability in the transatlantic area, as the London Declaration makes clear: “We need to keep standing together, to extend the long peace we have enjoyed these past four decades”. Upholding the values that have always guided it, NATO became more than a powerful military Alliance: it became a political forum for dialogue and cooperation.

NATO’s Open Door policy has been, and will always be, based on the free choice of European democracies. When Ukraine decided to pursue a “non-bloc policy,” NATO fully respected that choice. Russia’s long-time assertion that NATO tried to force Ukraine into its ranks was, and remains, completely false.

NATO has fulfilled the terms of Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty (available here) which states that Allies “may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”
On six occasions, between 1952 and 2009, European countries made the choice to apply for membership based on a democratic process and respect for the rule of law. NATO Allies made the unanimous choice to accept them.

NATO and EU enlargement has helped the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to tackle difficult reforms, which were required prior to accession. It has helped their citizens enjoy the benefits of democratic choice, the rule of law, and substantial economic growth. These efforts have moved Europe closer to being whole, free, and at peace than at any other time in history.

Russia also subscribed to this vision in the Founding Act. It committed to “creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence,” and to “respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security.”
Contrary to those commitments, Russia now appears to be attempting to recreate a sphere of influence by seizing a part of Ukraine, maintaining large numbers of forces on its borders, and demanding, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently stated, that “Ukraine cannot be part of any bloc.”


Just because Russian couldn't afford overseas bases and struggles to find willing country to allow such, doesn't mean Russia isnt looking for deals across the globe to reopen old soviet bases

Russia is currently in talks with Argentina and others to establish bases...

SO... i guess that's your "theory" out the window



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

elysiumfire
junglimogli:

Hey genius...


That's about the only thing you got right with your post, Mowgli...bear necessities and everything.

Well done.


nice try .. take a hint .. its sarcasm ...
no geniuses here ..



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
USA shouldnt be there,pull ur ship out,your not the world police,if i was putin i would give that ship hell till it pi55ed off,go back home for christ sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
AMERIKA lol



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
 


The formal treaty isn't posted online. But overflights like this are a technical violation of the treaty.


I get what you say but then, and technically it wasn't an overflight either. As far as I gather it, it was a lateral bypass at several thousand feet and didn't overfly the deck.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkblade71
 


What's the point in sending more ships if they are just going to sit there while the Russians make low level passes within strike range? How is that supposed to reassure the Ukrainians? If you're not prepared to take action to defend yourself how in the name of god are we supposed to believe that you're going to take action to help the Ukrainian government.

Looks to me like the Russians just called Obama's bluff in the Black Sea.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by eyeinoz
 


Russia isn't supposed to fly over other countries without permission, or perform mock attacks on cities in other countries but they do.

It works both ways.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


It didn't matter. The treaty applies to all activities around ships of with side, whether it's a direct overflight, or alongside.

Technically they don't fly directly over them for safety reasons.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

eyeinoz
USA shouldnt be there,pull ur ship out,your not the world police,if i was putin i would give that ship hell till it pi55ed off,go back home for christ sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
AMERIKA lol


Sounds like something Kim Jong Unn would say

what makes you think it should be there?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by redshoes
 


There was no "bluff". Russian aircraft overfly US ships all the time without incident.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

eyeinoz
USA shouldnt be there,pull ur ship out,your not the world police,if i was putin i would give that ship hell till it pi55ed off,go back home for christ sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
AMERIKA lol


The U.S.A. doesn't take orders from Russia, Vladimir. We'll go anywhere on this globe that we damn well please.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

rickynews
The Black Sea is in International Waters. U.S. Navy has as much right to be there as the Russian Navy.


And a Russian aircraft also has a right to be there... so why the fuss?
edit on 14-4-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

hellobruce

rickynews
The Black Sea is in International Waters. U.S. Navy has as much right to be there as the Russian Navy.


And a Russian aircraft also has a right to be there... so why the fuss/


I think its about the provocation by the Russian Jet. That's what the Pentagon said.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rickynews
 


I think that the fact that the U.S. has to have their nose and a WARSHIP in the Black Sea in the first place is provocative enough. It is NATO and the EU who should be most concerned of goings on in this area. The fact that th US deems it necessary to provide such means as a warship just goes to show where they would like this to go does it not? Think of things from a Russian pilot pov. If there were a Russian ship in neutral waters off te coast of the states how many pissed off Air Force pilots would get cocky and show them they're not afraid. It's not their fight. Hell it's across the world, same as Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore. Shouldn't be there in the first place in my opinion. That is all




top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join